XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/30/2025 8:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/30/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/29/2025 11:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition   
   >>>> which asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Correctly paraphrased as:   
   >>>> a sequence of inference steps from axioms   
   >>>> that assert that they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>   
   >>> No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The axioms   
   >>> merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not negation   
   >>> and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools   
   >>> think they both /are/ those things.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> G := (F ⊬ G)   
   >   
   > That isn't the statement of G, so you start with a lie.   
   >   
   >   
   >> a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms   
   >> of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.   
   >>   
   >   
      
   (F ⊬ G)   
   "⊬" means that a sequence of inference steps from   
   F to G do not exist.   
      
   > But that statement you are trying to start with isn't a statement in F,   
      
   Since is begins with F it is in F.   
   That people do not usually look at this degree   
   of detail do not mean that I am incorrect.   
      
   > but an interpretation of the statement in F as understood in MF.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is showing you stupidity of not understanding context.   
   >   
      
   All the I am doing is looking at these things at   
   the deeper level beyond indoctrination. I am directly   
   examining the foundations of logic and math.   
      
   Everyone else takes these as "given" as if from   
   the mind of God.   
      
   > And thus you show you can't understand meaning, as meaning is based on   
   > context.   
   >   
      
   I understand meaning better then anyone else.   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   for this entire body is one giant semantic tautology.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)